The mysterious corona virus

There is a criterion established for identifying a virus, It began with the Koch postulate which basically claimed that a virus needed to be isolated and demonstrated to infect organisms in the same manner as the suspected virus. Of course, that is not kosher when it comes to infecting people.

This procedure was not followed with HIV and that suspected virus has never been proved to exist using the Koch postulate or the newer guidelines established at the Louis Pasteur Institute in Paris. The French scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, admitted he did not follow the protocol of the LPI even though one of his team members sat on the LPI panel that laid down the method for identifying a virus. In fact, the latter, Dr. Barre Sinousi, has gone on to HIV fame based on her involvement in the discovery which ignored the rules she help establish for identifying a virus.

The LPI protocol requires that a virus must be isolated, purified, and examined under an electron microscope. In the case of a retrovirus like HIV, it looks like a tiny golf ball with spikes extending from it and it's diameter can be measured precisely. Montagnier admitted he met neither of those requirements and a lab technician confirmed that HIV was never seen using an electron microscope.

So how was HIV identified? Well...er...em...it wasn't. According to Montagnier, strands of RNA were found in a specimen from someone with AIDS and it was PRESUMED the RNA came from HIV. Other scientists were quick to point out that the RNA could have come from other infections in the AIDS patient since most people with AIDS have several other infections due to their lifestyles.

There is a problem in modern science, that when a paradigm is established, anyone not accepting it is ostracized. Dr. Peter Duesberg, a world renowned expert on retroviruses, claimed that HIV is a harmless virus that could not possibly cause AIDS. Montagnier eventually came to agree with him but meantime, Duesberg was stripped of his right to teach classes as a professor and reduced to conducting lab classes. The same thing happens with scientists who oppose the anthropogenic warming paradigm even though no one has yet proved a connection in the atmosphere between warming and anthropogenic gases.

Since the RNA means of identifying a virus has become a paradigm, most other virii like SARS, the swine flue, and now the corona virus have been identified using the same indirect method. No one has produced an image from an electron microscope of any such isolated virus.

Stefan Lanka, an expert on viruses, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, has studied this closely and has claimed that most virii have no images to verify them. That included not only the HIV virus, but other virii like small pox, polio, et al. He claims images offered of such virii are nothing more than the cell masses in which they are claimed to exist. Montagnier seemed to confirm that approach when he claimed he THOUGHT 1 in 10,000 cells in a specimen were HIV. He never saw an isolated HIV virus, he THOUGHT it must be there based on strands of RNA.

Here's the scary part. Scientists are targeting that RNA with toxic drugs in an attempt to eradicate THE RNA. Some of those clowns have gone so far as to claim the drugs have eradicated HIV. However, the drug companies who produce the drugs offer a disclaimer that the drugs cannot cure an HIV infection and they warn that the drugs can cause life threatening complications with the liver, kidneys, and blood, while PRODUCING THE OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS KNOWN AS AIDS. The latter issues in known as IRS and Duesberg has aptly labelled it as 'AIDS by prescription'.

The World Health Organization claimed an imminent pandemic based on the HIV virus. It did not happen, in fact, less than a fraction of 1% of the populations of countries where people enjoy a healthy immune system contracted AIDS. A local HIV expert claimed that if every person in my region, of 4 million plus, were tested, only a small fraction of 1% would test positive.

So why have we been inundated the past 40 years with disinformation about HIV? And why are we now being inundated with scary stories about a virus that has never been officially identified? Montagnier, who discovered HIV, came out a few years ago and claimed that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The data backs that statement. Therefore, I am going to take the current propaganda about the corona virus with a grain of salt.

I am not into conspiracy theories, my interest is in science, which is based on the scientific method. The latter was never applied to HIV or the corona virus, nor has it been applied to the theories of anthropogenic global warming, climate change, the Big Bang Theory, black hole theory, evolution, space-time theory, or some parts of quantum theory.

The human mind can be dangerous in science when ego becomes mixed with observation. In fact, ego clouds observation and distorts it. It's even worse when that ego is coupled with the opportunity to make big money. None seem more ego-oriented and profit-oriented than the crowds involved in pushing the HIV-AIDS theory. Even though Montagnier claimed from the beginning that HIV alone could not cause AIDS, others like Robert Gallo, who has a patent on HIV tests, rode the propaganda to wealth.

I don't know what the angle is today with the corona virus but Lanka has claimed in the past with the bird-flu and the swine-flu that neither was caused by a virus but due to infections from animals being kept in squalid environments. That describes the conditions from which the corona virus is claimed to emanate, open markets where meat products and live animals are kept in close quarters. I am willing to bet this is not a virus either but a product of humans treating animals badly and failing to protect meat products against bacterial infection.

It has been over a month since I posted this post above and it's interesting to see how things have developed.

First, I hope everyone out there is well and enduring the hardships imposed on us by various governments. Hope it will be over soon.

I live in the Vancouver, Canada area and thus far we've had about 20 deaths due to this contagion, most of them involving seniors in rest homes. I am not making light of that as a statistic, I feel for the people who have succumbed to this infectious agent.

It is claimed that the infection began in Wuhan province of China and has been spread globally by people travelling from China to global locations. Here in the Vancouver area we have over one million fairly recent Chinese immigrants and plane loads, mainly Chinese people, fly out of Vancouver and back daily, from China. Yet no Chinese resident has been reported to die from this contagion nor has anyone reported to have died from contact with a Chinese person.

In my area, immediately south of Vancouver, there are an estimated 700,000 Chinese immigrants, most of them fairly recent, and I have mingled with them freely in supermarkets before the social distancing mandates were enforced since I wrote the blurb above. In the entire Vancouver area of about 4 million people, there are only 106 people in hospital and of those, 60 are in intensive care.

I don't think that can be defined here in Canada by any scientific definition as an epidemic. Italy is certainly an epidemic, as is Spain, but why the dramatic difference globally? In the US, over 1/3 of the cases are in New York City. I am curious as to how lifestyle factors differ between Vancouver, Italy, Spain, and New York City. And I am curious as to whether the contagions in each area come from the same source.

It has been presumed all current contagions are due to covid19. However, that virus has never been properly isolated, purified, and photographed. That process is not rocket science so why has it not been done? Rather, identification is based on RNA in samples from infected people believed to be from a virus. There is not way to compare that RNA with the RNA found in a virus until the virus is isolated and it's constituent proteins studied. Therefore the identification is a guess.

The tests, like the HIV tests, do not test for a virus. They test for antibodies 'believed' to be from a virus. Therefore the tests are very general and don't reveal much other than the degree of illness. They don't tell you if there is a virus present therefore the number of deaths attributed to covid19 could be seriously misleading.

During the early phases of HIV, circa 1983, the virus was referred to as 'the virus believed to cause AIDS'. It was not till nearly a decade later that the media dropped the 'believed to cause' and began calling HIV the AIDS virus. Today, with covid, they don't bother with the 'believed to cause' even though the virus has only been inferred indirectly, in the same manner as HIV.

That may sound like a moot point but there could be serious ramifications if it's an unknown agent causing the contagion. The theory is that the virus began in open markets in Wuhan, China where live animals in squalid living conditions were kept amid meat for sale. The coronavirus family is thought to be a virus found only in animals but which can cause anywhere from a cold in humans to contagions like SARS. The operative word is 'can', there is no scientific proof simply because the virus has never been isolated, purified and photographed.

H1N1 apparently originated in a pig farm in Mexico. Locals had been complaining that waste products from the farm had been contaminating drinking water and making them sick. The question is how it got from a farm in Mexico to a global pandemic.

I personally find it very scary with regard to the demise of science. The scientific method has been discarded by many modern scientists and replaced with consensus and innuendo. In some cases, with sheer fantasy, as in the theory of the Big Bang, where all matter in the current universe supposedly came into being out of nothing in a fraction of a second.

Life itself is explain in evolution theory as emanating from 5 inert elements: oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and hydrogen. One thing that cannot be explained is how DNA, the basic organic structure of life has codes in it which are read by RNA to form amino acids and proteins. The RNA seeks out and finds the correct codes to make specific proteins. Are the evolutionists claiming that the intelligence inherent in such a process and such codes just happened by chance? Codes represent intelligence and order, not chance.

In medical science, things are becoming very scary. I have written to several government agencies in Canada asking for proof that covid19 has been isolated. Some ignore my request and those who reply ignore it as well, pointing me to government sponsored propaganda sites.

Currently, 'projection' of the spread of the contagion are being based on computer models. They are called projections because the models are unvalidated and can predict nothing. That's very scary in itself. Climate models have been a total failure. When programmed with real weather data from the past they cannot output current climate conditions. How are medical models going to do any better when they have no precedence for the current contagion?

The world economy is being ruined by statisticians. People are being put out of work and business closed based on 'projected' statistics. I don't want to see nothing done but I would like to see 'objective' researchers who know what they are doing, closely studying each locale to determine who is getting sick and what risk there might be to healthy people going about their normal business. Seems to me governments hire scientists who are lacking in objectivity.

I do not understand if this is one of the propaganda sites but (NIAID) seems to have some photographs
i also do not understand enough about morphology and structural analysis of virii
also i have read about scientists publishing in ijmr about using tem (transmission electron microscope by niv india)

may be they exist after all ?? if million people have been infected by this covid-19 till date

I do not understand if this is one of the propaganda sites but (NIAID) seems to have some photographs

Thanks for the info. Took a look at NIAID's site and I see two problems with the photograph as a layman. One, they are neatly coloured, and two, the photo lacks a size marker.

If you look at the viruses themselves you see little projections coming from the circumference. The virus is coloured yellow while the projections are coloured light blue. Unlikely. Also, if you can see the projections stemming from the sides why can't you see their heads in blue, head on, as a polka dot pattern. The only explanation is that the virus has been sliced in half, which is highly unlikely. The viruses are in the order of 100 nanometres and I doubt whether we have tools to make such a neat slice. The viruses can be taken apart and their RNA analyzed, along with other proteins.

I fear this is nothing more than an artist's depiction or a computer generated guess.

Here's an excellent interview with an expert on how viruses operate and are detected. It focuses on HIV, which is a retrovirus, but the same holds true for all viruses. I think it can be understood by laymen since I understand what the author is saying. It's a lengthy interview but it covers HIV from its discovery and describes the approach that lead to it being claimed to be the cause of AIDS.

http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.htm

Quotes that pertain to the identification of viruses today re the detection of antibodies:

"My bits and pieces of anatomy are mine because they're part of me. Either inside or outside. If one of my kidneys is diseased and has to be removed the first thing the surgeon must do before Iím put on the operating table is to check and make sure it's me. It's no different with viruses. Viral proteins are the proteins that come out of particles proven to be a virus. It's that simple. If you want to define the proteins of a retroviral particle first you must prove you HAVE a retroviral particle".

"Antibodies are imprecise but that's not the issue here. Antibodies are irrelevant. You prove proteins come from a virus particle by isolating the particle and then doing a dissection. You donít prove proteins are constituents of a viral particle by performing chemical reactions on what is essentially a culture soup. It has nothing to do with it. So what if some proteins and antibodies react? There's many reasons why these reactions might take place".

Thanks for the info. Took a look at NIAID's site and I see two problems with the photograph as a layman. One, they are neatly coloured, and two, the photo lacks a size marker.

If you look at the viruses themselves you see little projections coming from the circumference. The virus is coloured yellow while the projections are coloured light blue. Unlikely. Also, if you can see the projections stemming from the sides why can't you see their heads in blue, head on, as a polka dot pattern. The only explanation is that the virus has been sliced in half, which is highly unlikely. The viruses are in the order of 100 nanometres and I doubt whether we have tools to make such a neat slice. The viruses can be taken apart and their RNA analyzed, along with other proteins.

I fear this is nothing more than an artist's depiction or a computer generated guess.

EM is not unfamiliar to me. I don't see anything unusual about the look of the NIH electron micrographs frankly. EM's are often colored elaborately for publication.

TEM micrographs are necessarily focussed on a narrow plane, that's why you don't see the projection heads, this is essentially a digital slice of the full structure that can be refocussed. Compare with the other SEM images. Lack of a scale doesn't take away their validity, the originals do.

Freeze fracturing can physically split cells and bacteria to get visuals of the inner structures, but I'm not sure if it's been done on viruses.

At least it's some progress and a lot of work is being done on it worldwide, let's hope medicine and science can prevail.

I remain positive even though my posts may suggest otherwise. If you read Eleni Eleopolis at the link I provided in my last post, she goes into EM's at a deep level.

She maintains that many particles look like viruses but are not. The true test is to purify the virus and see if it will cause the same reaction in another cell culture. Also, to pull the particle apart to see if it has the requisite proteins and enzymes to be a virus. The former point was a part of the Koch postulate as well.

The reason I got into this was the abysmal treatment of Peter Duesberg for his skepticism re the danger of HIV. The guy is an expert on retroviruses and won the California Scientist of the Year award for his work. He was also the youngest inductee of his time into the National Academy of Science, an award that is not handed to any old scientist.

Among the reasons he gave for his skepticism was that in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, in New York and San Francisco, where mostly young gay men were dying of AIDS, Duesberg felt that no virus could target men only. If you follow the US CDC figures since 1983, each year the deaths in the US from AIDS were 60% gay men and 30% intravenous drug users. Duesberg formulated the theory that AIDS was about lifestyle, mainly about high risk behavior and drug abuse. Whether he was right or wrong, his concerns should have been investigated. Rather, he was ostracized and I find that unacceptable in science.

After the horrid treatment of Duesberg, I have become suspicious of the motives of the medical establishment. Many of them shunned Linus Pauling, a genius in chemistry, for claiming large doses of vitamin C 'might' help prevent the common cold. Anthony Fauci was one of those who shunned Duesberg and I find it scary that he is now one of the leading advisors of Trump's government. His so-called expertise is now focused on unvalidated computer models.

Nearly 40 years later, the scientist who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, changed course to agree with Duesberg. Montagnier wrote a book relating AIDS to oxidative stress, and that model fits the facts better than a sexually transmitted disease. It covers AIDS in Africa where people who suffer from wasting syndrome, suffer from malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. Wasting syndrome, once known as Slim Disease, was known to be caused by the aforementioned but when the sexually transmitted virus hypothesis emerged, suddenly wasting syndrome was included as an AIDS opportunistic infection. But only in Africa, being virtually unknown in North America and Europe.

My point is that I don't want to wait another 40 years to find a solution to these problems because certain people with control don't want to allow skeptical opinions. There are virologists today trying to point out that the protocol for identifying a virus is being bypassed and they can't get an explanation as to why. Scientist need to work together, get off their ego/power trips, and discuss the problems based on the scientific method.

Don't think that's not happening. In climate science, peer review is now largely run by climate alarmists. They are doing the same thing to climate skeptics the medical establishment did to Peter Duesberg. In one case,Kevin Trenberth, a leading alarmist, blasted a journal editor for publishing a skeptic paper, causing the editor to resign. One of the focal points of the Climategate email scandal was leading alarmists discussing how to interfere with peer review, or even block it. Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, then head of Hadcrut, the UK centre for climate studies, boasted that he and his partner, Kevin, would ensure certain skeptic papers would not reach the review stage at IPCC reviews. His partner was the same Kevin from above.

As a student of science, this form of fascism annoys me deeply. I have always regarded science as a noble following where scientists are above ego-trips and power-trips. Perhaps that's my naivete talking. It's fairly obvious today that many areas of science are leaning more on consensus than the scientific method. Left to the vagaries of the human mind, like consensus, ego, and illusion, science will soon revert to the Dark Ages, where people like Copernicus and Galileo were threatened for expressing skeptical notions of the universe.

I watched a program a while back on weather forecasting. The guy conducting it is a meteorologist and he explained how they use models. The difference, however, is that weather models are based on scads of data and experience gathered over decades. Meantime, climate models using the same past data cannot predict the present climate.

Even at that, the guy claimed they cannot always tell how a weather system will react and it's not beyond a meteorologist to 'look out the window', to see what's actually happening, or call a distant colleague to get him to look out the window.

That's not what they are doing with this covid hysteria. They are doing statistical calculation with models based on non-existent data or precedence. Some are patterning their models on China, some on Italy without knowing anything about the conditions there or what this contagion is about. They seem to be doing everything but looking out the window.

Here in Canada we've had about 130 deaths out of 36 million people. I could be arrested for this but I say let's stop the nonsense and get things back to normal, then see what happens. I base that on the fact that since mid-February when all this began in North America, and long before measures like social distancing, we were all mingling freely and very little came of in the way of deaths in Canada.

The US have suffered about 5000+ deaths but they are not indicating how many of those people were terminal or had underlying health conditions. I definitely think that in an over-crowded place like New York City, where 1/3rd of all US deaths have occurred, people should behave far more carefully.

When prohibition was invoked in the US back in the 1920s, anyone who wanted a drink could get one. It will be the same anywhere in the world with forced isolation if government go that route. You simply cannot legislate people to stay at home without an income in a democratic country. They can try, but I'll bet few people will comply. And in the next election, the government will be booted out on their butts.

The irony for me lies in the wishes of our local BC government, and the previous right-wing government, that we should leave our cars at home and use public transit. To force us into that they have established a 25+ cent per litre carbon tax. One of those poobahs should try getting on the local Skytrain or a bus during rush hour. People are crammed in them like sardines. No social distancing. In flu season, it's a wonder we don't get flu epidemics.

The fact that we don't is testament to the folly of social distancing. We are required to stand six feet apart from other customers in a superstore but everyone in the store can handle merchandise and leave their contaminants all over the products. Sure, if someone is infected and sneezes in your direction, standing at a distance might help. But there's no way to prevent the spread of viruses through handling products and infrastructure and you cannot stop people from getting groceries.

"Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination, which may lead to new genotypes and outbreaks. The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb. The possibility of the reemergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored."

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infectionhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176051/?fbclid=IwAR2zMlEA-UdrYneDhVxRX2t7HXS0p1Ur_2WGK3H4y0EAlnUZmMeb_Y6R1eA

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection

This raises a question in my layman mind. If a virus is causing respiratory infection, one should be able to isolate the virus from an infected human's lungs, purify it, then use it to re-infect similar cell cultures. They should have no problem posting a black and white photo of such a virus.

Also, by focusing on a virus that is inferred, could we be missing another pathogen that came from sick animals and spread by humans? Is there even a remote possibility that biological warfare could be involved? Just wondering? How can we rule anything out if our focus is only on an inferred virus?

According to Stefan Lanka, an expert on viruses, this has never been done. He has written to researchers asking for such a photo of certain isolated viruses and they have ignored him. I wanted to post an entire interview with him but it's 6 pages long and I thought it might be too much for this Off Topic thread. I'll post the link, but it's hard to read on the site because all the lines run together. I found by copying the page and pasting it in a proper words processor, the format is much easier to read.

"Some believe that when reverse transcriptase activity is present in certain cell cultures, this indicates the presence of a virus; others, when they find DNA fragments, believe that they come from a virus; others, if they locate proteins such as P24 or P41, either believe that they belong to a virus, or say they have isolated a virus.

Isolating a virus means separating it from everything else. Let's talk about a procedure that has been carried out with all known viruses. It is easy to do because, unlike cells, a virus always has the same size and shape.

A part of the virus isolation process is centrifugation (if we centrifuge a solution where the viruses are present in a test tube, as a result we will have a dark ring-shaped sediment, this sediment is formed by viruses).

Once a solution with the viruses is centrifuged, a sample is taken, colored and photographed with an electron microscope. Electrophoresis is also part of the process for isolating a virus; this analysis allows to isolate different proteins of the virus according to their size. To do this, first, a sample of viric particles is taken and shredded".

****

In his first sentence in the quote, he is saying what I am trying to say. A virus like covid19 is inferred based on the theory that evidence of reverse transcription is enough to establish a virus. He disagrees, not so much in the quote, but in other articles I have read by him. Apparently, reverse transcription (conversion of RNA to DNA) is common in other cellular processes.

His explanation of colouring the sample jives with yours but he claims it is coloured before the EM and you were referring to colouring for publication.

I was reading about EMs last night because I have the crazy notion of building one. It's not as hard as it may seem, the basis of the theory and apparatus is something with which I have great familiarity from electronics. I am referring to the electron beams used in cathode ray tubes, used in oscilloscopes and TVs, which is based on nothing more than the thermionic emission used in vacuum tubes that literally boils electrons electrically off a tungsten filament.

Once the electron cloud is established around the tungsten filament it is accelerated toward a positive anode. In a vacuum tube, that +ve potential can be low, say 200 volts DC to 400 volts DC. With oscilloscopes and TVs, that anode potential can be 5 kilovolts to 40 kilovolts. I could easily build all of that stuff because I have worked with a repaired those circuits.

A fly in the ointment is that all this must take place in a vacuum. That's why they call them vacuum tubes. If any air leaks into the tube, the air molecules are huge compared to the electron and block the electrons. A tube with an air leak acquires a milky colour. There are large bell jars available that can be evacuated but there is more to it. To get as close to a pure vacuum as possible, other measures are required. Building the evacuation apparatus could prove far more complicated than the actual electronics.

There are handheld EMs that can be built much easier, but when dealing with electron focus, vibration becomes an issue.

A guy on the net built one using a 1.5" copper tube about a foot long. The electrons are sucked down the tube by a 5 Kvolt potential and focuses into a beam using beam-former magnets. The beam is swept across the specimen using vertical and horizontal plates as in an oscilloscope. Sawtooth waves are applied to the plates to give a linear ramp drive for the beam. Of course, he has a large bell jar encosure for evacuation and two vacuum pumps.

There are different types of EMs. One has the electrons firing through a specimen which must be very thin and specially prepared. Another type reflects the electrons. Either way, a receiver is required to gather the reflected or pass through electrons and process them to get the required info. I could do the receiver as well but I have not read into the theory yet.

With regard to your point on the NIAID site linked to by Blabbs, it occurred to me that electrons cannot render an image in colour. The electron beam contains no colour info, unless it was vibrating at a frequency in the visual spectrum. It is the eye that adds colour based on the frequency of electromagnetic energy it receives. If an electron beam could be made to vibrate at a frequency in the visual spectrum it might give of an electromagnetic field that could be detected by the eye.

Lanka reveals that the colour is added beforehand. However, if you look at the photo at the NIAID site, one of the particles is twice the size of the others, and the others have irregular shapes. Eleni Elopolis, in her interview, reveals that a virus twice the size would need to have twice the mass and could not be in the same density gradient taken from a centrifuge used to isolate the virus particles. Based on that, I claim the NIAID TEM micrograph is questionable.

There is something fishy about the TEM micrograph at that site. If you copy/paste it to a graphics viewer and enlarge it, some of the light blue particles are not even attached to the body.

Blabbs...re the micrograph shown for this Indian site. Note the size marker at the bottom of the right micrograph. It says 10 nanometers. The splotches in the left micrographs are supposed to be viruses. In the right micrograph they claim a 'stalk' connecting virions, which are not viruses. Besides, the virions should be clearly visible.

A retrovirus, which is smaller than a virus, is in the range of 100 to 120 nanometers and can be clearly seen on an electron microscope. Those blurry images don't strike me as being clear or definitive.

There is something fishy about the TEM micrograph at that site. If you copy/paste it to a graphics viewer and enlarge it, some of the light blue particles are not even attached to the body.

Think of interpreting a TEM micrograph as a regular high-power field microscope as you focus downwards from the top of a 3D structure, you're going to get different views as you go through thin sections. By all accounts this virus/virion has club shaped peplomers attached to the body by a stalk. Depending on where the focus is the look of the peplomers, as well as the perceived cross sectional size of the body is going to be different.

Here's a TEM vs SEM image of cilia, from what I don't know but pretend they're analogous to the peplomers, you can see both longitudinal and cross sectional views of the cilia, which also gives the impression some are not "attached" to the body. Parts of the cilia are simply curved out of the plane of focus by some nanometers or don't exist in the microtome slice.

Disclaimer: I know hardly anything about SEMs or TEMs but I know a whole lot about electrons and how they interact with matter.

Things I have noted about micrographs from the SEM and TEM to which you linked.

1)There is a size marker on each micrograph.
2)Both micrographs are in black and white as one would expect from electron scanning.
3)Both EMs operate differently. The SEM scans the surface to a depth of no more than a few nanometres for the photo although electrons can penetrate deeper and produce ejection of electrons at a greater depth than a few nm. The deeper electrons ejected, however, are not for the image since they have poor resolution. They can indicate distribution of atomic structure but not identity.

From what I can garner, you use the SEM in one mode or the other. You either use it in surface scanning mode or you use it to probe deeper, not both at the same time.

The TEM electron beam passes right through the object therefore the object specimen must be prepared beforehand to a typical thickness of less than 100 nm. That would explain why the SEM graphic is so much different than the TEM graphic. In the NAIAD photo, that would mean the specimen would have to be in the order of 100 nm or less and a typical virus has a diameter of at least 100 nm.

In your TEM photo, it appears they have prepared the specimens so that some are lying perpendicular to the electron beam whereas others have been prepared as a cross sectional cut.

Note in either case, the whopping 1 micrometer size scale. You could get 1000 nm into that scale.

It strikes me that neither EM can be adjusted to probe deeper layers in an object. I say that because the deeper you scan the more the scanning electrons will interfere with the atomic structure and the less likely they will re-emerge in a coherent fashion.

Don't know enough about this but it strikes me that sending an electron beam through a thin slice should knock bonding electrons out of their valence orbits hence leading to the alteration of the structure or to the eventual destruction of the sample. It is indicated that ejection of inner electrons from inner shells produces xrays. That means the intensity of the electron beam has the high energy required to eject an inner shell electron and to cause an xray emission. That's usually only the case when very high energy particles or electromagnetic radiation interacts with inner shell electrons, causing them to transition to a higher energy level, or be ejected from the atom altogether.

When a high energy electron moves between orbital levels, or right out of the atom, it produces an x-ray, a very short wavelength electromagnetic energy.

In Laymens term SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy ) creates and image that is Reflected from the collision so It is 3 Dimensional
Tem Trasnsmission Electron Microscopy Creates an Image of Electrons that passes through the Body hence 2 Dimensional

SEM has a limitation around nanometers (nm)
while TEM has been reported to Achieve around pm (pico meters)

an existence or nonexistence of a dimension marker does not invalidate the image (As K rightly noted)

here is small png where the cyan colored body is an example of SEM
while the Blue colored splines are representing a TEM image of the the same body

it is a simple combined projection of two splines in two planes
combined into a third curve in a third dimesnion and a small body swept on a resultant curve
and seriallly sectioned along a vector

it is dimension less because it can represent anything from a picometer to Astronomical units.

or an approximate model of a peplomer attached to the virion surface sliced or a cross section as would be visible using a tem

there are commercial applications that are used to reverse engineer a complex shape into a reproducible model

Copied this paragraph that sheds some light on why images are coloured/stained.

"The most straightforward way to determine the structures of molecules would
be to "see" how the nuclei are arranged and how the electrons are distributed.
This is not possible with visible light, because the wavelengths of visible light
are very much longer than the usual molecular dimensions. A beam of electrons
can have the requisite short wavelengths, but small organic molecules
are destroyed rapidly by irradiation with electrons of the proper wavelengths.
Nonetheless, electron microscopy is a valuable technique for the study of large
molecules, such as DNA, which can be stained with heavy-metal atoms before
viewing, or are themselves reasonably stable to an electron beam..."

This is kind of what I was thinking in my last post. Electrons in large quantities bombarding an atomic structure, especially if they penetrate right through a specimen, as with a TEM, are likely to dislodge bonding electrons and create all sorts of havoc. I guess that staining DNA with heavy metal atoms will help protect the DNA structure but I'm not so sure about their comment about electrons having the right wavelength.

Unless electrons are modulated somehow as a beam they should not have a wavelength but consist of a continuous stream of charged particles. In the atomic structure, in a particular orbital, they are given a frequency based on the number of times per second they orbit the nucleus. Also, in a microwave klystron or magnetron cavity, electrons are accelerated in circles up to high speeds and the electromagnetic radiation they give off has a frequency. But the electron itself is a particle with an electric charge which produces a magnetic field when it moves, hence producing an electric and magnetic field. I don't see how a particle with mass can have a frequency, nor a photon as quantum of electromagnetic energy.

My point about the size marker is sheerly for professional purposes. If your going to submit a paper about a virus as a scientist it seems to me appropriate to include a size marker on the required photo. It's equivalent to including a scale on a drawing. In engineering, we were taught to make a diagram self-explanatory by including all the required information to explain what your diagram is about. If you have photographed a virus at 120 nm, then include a scale to indicate the size of your virus relative to the scale.

If you look on the Net, on Google images, you will see all sorts of pretty pictures claiming to be a virus but hardly any I have seen include a size marker. You can see from kayaker's last post that SEM and TEM micrographs are in black and white. Since many a particle looks similar to a virus, seeing the size would help illustrate the point. In your NIAID photo, one particle is twice the size of the others and from what I have learned all viruses of a type should have the same size and shape.

Anyway, I hope this hysteria ends soon. Trump is now talking end of summer and many statisticians are wondering what model he is basing his projection on. I think he might be impeached if he tries to take it that far.

Really good video featuring an interview with A Swedish epidemiologist who is an advisor to the WHO. Explains the situation in Sweden and why they did not opt for a lockdown policy. Also, explains how the current contagion compares to the flu.